D&D 5E 5E imbalance: Don't want to play it

[Dausuul]

1. 5 feet = 1 square. If Thunderwave pushes your enemy 10 feet away, you know to move them 2 squares away (just like moving on a grid worked in 3E and many earlier editions.)

I'd prefer a solution I've seen bandied about on several occasions: Convert all distances to yards, and say 1 square = 1 yard. Not only does it simplify the conversion, it makes it trivial to convert to metric; a yard is close enough to a meter that you can just swap out one for the other in the rulebook.

Although it would make all my old minis a little... odd, size-wise.

 

[GX.Sigma]

You are looking at the latest open playtest documents, not the latest playtest documents.

Big difference there.

Also, as it has been mentioned and linked many times, they have confirmed tactical options. (See: Legends and Lore)

Translation: I am in the closed playtest, and can't talk about things unless they've been officially confirmed.

Alternate translation: I am Chris Perkins, and I like messing with people on the internet.

 

[Prickly]

I'd prefer a solution I've seen bandied about on several occasions: Convert all distances to yards, and say 1 square = 1 yard. Not only does it simplify the conversion, it makes it trivial to convert to metric; a yard is close enough to a meter that you can just swap out one for the other in the rulebook.

Although it would make all my old minis a little... odd, size-wise.

I agree with this. I'm not american and I have have trouble picturing distances in feet.

Also, its inconvenient to divide all distance by 5 when using a grid.

 

[pemerton]

Essentials had the martial classes with no daily powers (and balanced against regular classes); it doesn't seem unlikely that getting rid of dailies for spellcasters would be possible.

The elementalist sorcerer does this (as I'm sure you know).

Facing is a pretty big part of most other tactical miniature games.

<snip>

Facing adds instant tactical options. You can just move beside an enemy or to the side to hope for a flank or dash around and strike from behind to get a solo bonus. This encourages movement without having extra powers that induce movement. On your own turn you might have to decide which enemy to face.

I'm another one of those who groaned when Mearls mentioned facing in the context of a tactical module. For me facing is a bit like hit location - it adds detail, but doesn't on its own add dynamism. And what I enjoy most about 4e's combat resolution is its dynamism (both mechanical and dramatic).

Facing rules also tend to emphasise what is already one of the wonkier parts of modern D&D's combat mechanics, namely, the "freeze-frame" nature of the turn sequence and action economy.

That's not to say that facing is inherently flawed as a mechanic. It just struck me as odd that Mearls would focus on it in an attempt to appeal to 4e players.

The thing that folks overlook when making the "complexity disparity" argument is that hitting things with pointy bits of metal is an inherently simpler task than utilizing esoteric knowledge to affect the basic laws of physics in a localized fashion.

Whether or not that's true - and I'm not sure that it has to be, particularly for divine casters - that doesn't really tell us much about what the play experience should be like for the player. The experience of playing a simpler character needn't itself be simpler (anymore than the experience of playing a fighter should be more painful, just because they get hit more often in combat).

 

[Lokiare]

What makes you think I'm talking about facing?

As for the redesigning classes from the ground up, etc...I can definitively say that is not true.

Well since facing is the only thing that they mentioned when they talked about their tactical module, that's what I'm going on, unless I missed an article or two mentioning other features? I'd be glad to read any articles you can link that say its anything but stuff like 'facing'.

When they announced the 'facing' tactical module to satisfy fans of the tactical aspect of 4E, that's when I pretty much knew they didn't have a clue what 4E fans were saying when they said 'tactical'.

As to the ground up redesign, it wouldn't have to be a total redesign, but they would have to go through at each level and re-evaluate how each classes features dealt with the tactical side of things. For most caster classes, there wouldn't need to be a lot of changes, but for other classes who just stand there and hit things with a slightly different flare, they would need to change quite a few things.

Please note my bolded additions to the quote above.

Also please note there is (or should be) much more to a character than just its rule-based game mechanics.

A mechanically-simple fighter can be as complex a character as you want it to be. Just role-play it that way.

Lan-"simple? who's calling me simple?"-efan

Anyone can role play a complex or simple character with or without the rules, which is why we focus on the rules. What is 'more to a character than just its rule-based game mechanics' is brought by the player, not the rules. WotC brings the rules to us and for the most part we can't change them with sweeping changes if we want any kind of consistency from table to table:

"Yeah, I played a fighter that flipped around the battlefield dual wielding great axes and slicing monsters in half if I rolled 18-20 on the dice. 5E is great."

"Huh, that's not my experience. I could only move or attack when using my one great sword. I would drop it on a 1-5 on the roll because it was so heavy and I rarely hit because the DM said my attacks were slow. My character eventually died of a heart attack because of too much exertion."

Lokiare you seem negative

If you really like the mechanics of an edition that already exists...go play it. If you need to make adjustments....make them. If you want to steal ideas and material from other games...go grab whatvere you want. A new version of Dungeons & Dragons just gives us more to choose from to make up whatever our imaginations can conjure. It's fun! C'mon enjoy yourself and just play

"Stop being so negative, at least you are warm right? and look at all that light, you should be happy."

Man talking to fireman about his house burning down "What?!? are you crazy? I just asked you to put the fire out, not give me a lecture on being positive."

I'm not being negative. I'm looking at a building burning down and saying 'what can we do to stop this.'

It CAN be constructive criticism. Or rather it's a part of constructive criticism. If all you do is point out flaws then it stops being constructive and starts being abusive.
This thread serves one purpose: to be negative. And it's not the old place you've voiced this. Every thread on D&D Next (almost) has a Lokiare post -on topic or off- brining up the exact same complaint you bring up here.
It's been noted. You've said it. We all know, and we all get it: you want a more complex fighter. You don't need to say it again.


And also a lot less finished than 4e.
But this sounds like a good thing. 3e was underbalanced while 4e was overbalanced, sacraficing signature elements of the game for balance. Somewhere in the middle sounds good.


Well... you don't want 5e, and seem to be pro-balance and want fighter options. So 4e sounds like a good option. You don't have to switch if you don't want to. And there are some advantages to sticking with a "finished" game system
Or 13th Age. Or maybe another of the hundred plus games on RPGNow.

Instead of filling your time on ENWorld hating a game, find something you love and spend your time writing about how awesome it is and creating content for it.

Look. I'm trying to salvage my play style from the next version of the game (which is supposed to support all play styles). I'm not insulting 5E or posting edition warring comments about it. I'm posting factual comparisons using numbers and my personal opinion of how that plays out. I'm not being negative, only critical. There is a huge difference. I'm being constructive by criticizing how the game works.

If you have problems with my posts then please hit the report button. If not, then quit complaining and simply don't respond to my posts.

Whoa whoa whoa... slow your roll there.

You think "tactics" means rewriting the game using squares and strictly defined jargon? That is an unrealistic expectation! And one that I adamantly oppose! My group and I love minis. We use a grid for set piece fights and theatre of the mind for small fast skirmishes. I like one ruleset that easily translates to either medium. I really enjoy the plainspeak they have been using in the rules, and it translates just fine to a grid.

Nope, sorry. You are reading things into my posts that aren't there. I don't care whether they call squares "5 feet" or "1 square". That's not tactics. That's jargon.

I would also love a rule set that could be used for quick skirmishes and large tactical battles. Unfortunately 5E fails to do that and it has nothing to do with terminology.

They don't need to recreate the rules of an older edition, by reintroducing strictly defined jargon like Shift, Slide, Push, Pull, and Flank.

Nope, they sure don't do they? Of course I never asked for that in any of my posts, so nice straw man I guess(intentional or otherwise). I'll tell you at the end of your quotes what a tactical game is.

To introduce tactical grid-based play they just need to provide a list of rules for translation. For instance:

1. 5 feet = 1 square. If Thunderwave pushes your enemy 10 feet away, you know to move them 2 squares away (just like moving on a grid worked in 3E and many earlier editions.)

2. How does moving or counting distance diagonally work? What are the different ways (1-1-1, or 1-2-1, or 2-1-2) and how would they impact your game?

3. How to translate bursts and cones and other Area effects into grid templates. Perhaps explain that they might look like squares on a grid (like 4E) or they look more circular (like 3E) depending on the diagonal rule you choose.

4. Do you want to use facing? Here is a rule, and here are the benefits and drawbacks and how shields and flanking might work in this paradigm.

Stuff like that.

... in my opinion.

None of that has much to do with tactics. Terminology doesn't being able to push, pull, and slide doesn't. What tactics are is:

Wikipedia defines a tactic as "A tactic is a conceptual action implemented as one or more specific tasks."

What tactics mean when we talk about D&D is the ability to choose different actions to reach a goal. In order to have tactics you have to have time to have a choice.

With the various save or die or save or suck spells and effects in the game there is none of that. You roll a save and you either die or you live with no ill effects. Reaching your goal relies more on a lucky roll of the dice than it does on any choice you make.

What 4E had (and I'm not advocating for a new 4E clone) was the ability and time to make a choice that would affect the encounter.

For instance say a character in 4E triggered a Flesh to Stone trap while trying to steal a gemstone from the eye socket of a statue. In 4E Flesh to Stone takes 2-3 rounds.

You fail the first save and you are immobilized, you fail the second save and you are restrained, you fail the third save you are turned to stone.

So in 4E your Paladin can grant an extra save with bonuses to help mitigate the traps effects. A Cleric has time to simply remove the immobilized or restrained condition altogether stopping the transofrmation. There are hundreds of choices that can be done to try to stop the character from turning to stone.

In 5E that same situation comes up, the character rolls a save and if the fail they are turned to stone. That's it, no tactics involved.

Ideally they could simply redefine keywords for each play style:

Gritty:
Turn to Stone-Make a Constitution saving throw, if you fail you are turned to stone and have resistance to damage.

Tactical:
Turn to Stone-Make a Constitution saving throw, if you fail you are immobilized and make a second Constitution saving throw, if you fail you are restrained and make a third Constitution saving throw, if you fail you are turned to stone and have resistance to damage.

Now that I've defined what I mean, please quit trying to construe me in a negative light.

Pointing out flaws is just criticism.

Constructive criticism is a slightly different beast. It includes giving both positive and negative feedback, and calls for doing so in a friendly, rather than a confrontational manner. They key word is "constructive" - the point is to try to be an active help in the process, not just a source of data that happens to be negative. The difference can be illustrated thusly:

Criticism: This is bad! This sucks! This doesn't work at all!

Constructive criticism: It might be better if you did this instead, because.... But I found this other bit to be really good, and would love to see more of it!

I have to say that starting with, "This is so bad I won't play it!" rather fails to be constructive due to its confrontational tone. It doesn't really come across as trying to be helpful.

Actually constructive criticism is any criticism that can be acted upon to improve the situation. Thus my extremely detailed and factual criticisms (whether you agree with their validity or not) are by their nature constructive.

 

[RevTurkey]

When you call D&D 5e 'a building burning down'....

I'd say that's pretty negative.

Man, you are argumentative. No worries, I am done trying to convince you to give the finished game a try when it comes out. Keep grumbling, keep complaining. It will get you nowhere.

I hope you have a game you like. I don't see that the new edition deserves the level of hatred you are throwing at it. It will not be perfect...no game is but it might just be enjoyable if you give it chance.

That's me done with this pointless thread. Bye

 

[Lokiare]

When you call D&D 5e 'a building burning down'....

I'd say that's pretty negative.

Man, you are argumentative. No worries, I am done trying to convince you to give the finished game a try when it comes out. Keep grumbling, keep complaining. It will get you nowhere.

I hope you have a game you like. I don't see that the new edition deserves the level of hatred you are throwing at it. It will not be perfect...no game is but it might just be enjoyable if you give it chance.

That's me done with this pointless thread. Bye

Yes. I stand by the 'building burning down' analogy. For some that old building needed to be removed. for others they didn't care one way or the other, but for those that went there on a regular basis and loved that building its a big deal.

The problem lies in the fact that 5E could be built in such a way that everyone would like the new building because it would have a historical side that mimicked much older buildings as well as a wing that is a replica of the previous building along side that there could be new experimental sections of the building that deal with things like zero energy costs and alternate experimental systems.

Unfortunately what we are getting is a building that looks like older buildings from a certain era, but with much cheaper modern materials used in the flawed old way of building things and they are trying to pass it off as the best building every made incorporating the best features of all the buildings of all time periods.

I do plan on finding an online game of 5E once its released. Maybe they will have fixed the problems that I have with it, but from the evidence so far from the open play test and the articles available, I'm not holding out any hope.

I'm also not throwing hatred. I'm doing what is called 'critical analysis' wherein I point out the problems with the system in the hopes they are fixed before release. I wish people would quit mis-characterizing my arguments and viewpoint as some kind of hate fest.

 

[Dausuul]

I shall be interested to see what, if anything, they make of facing rules. Facing was abandoned in 3E, for good reason; what seems a simple concept on the surface turns into an enormous can of worms when you try to make it work in what Pemerton accurately described as D&D's "freeze frame" approach. You get things like a rogue fighting an enemy in an open field, with no cover or allies, and circling around that enemy to deliver a backstab. This is ludicrous--no matter how fast your rogue is, the enemy can turn to face you faster than you can run circles around it! But preventing it turns out to be a fairly knotty problem, which is why 3E junked the whole idea and went with flanking instead.

 

[Jester David]

Look. I'm trying to salvage my play style from the next version of the game (which is supposed to support all play styles). I'm not insulting 5E or posting edition warring comments about it. I'm posting factual comparisons using numbers and my personal opinion of how that plays out. I'm not being negative, only critical. There is a huge difference. I'm being constructive by criticizing how the game works.

If you have problems with my posts then please hit the report button. If not, then quit complaining and simply don't respond to my posts.

Constructive criticism:
Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one. In collaborative work, this kind of criticism is often a valuable tool in raising and maintaining performance standards. Because of the overuse of negative, nagging criticism, some people become defensive even when receiving constructive criticism given in a spirit of good will. Constructive criticism is more likely to be accepted if the criticism is focused on the recipient's work or behavior. That is, personality issues must be avoided as much as is possible. Critical thinking can help identify relevant issues to focus on. Constructive criticism is also more likely to be embraced if the criticism is timely, clear, specific, detailed and actionable.

We can look back via your account at every single thing you've posted on ENWorld. And the vast majority are regarding 5e and most are overly negative.

I posted a lengthy response about how a tactical rule module could work without changing the rules. You didn't reply because that's not why you're here. You're here to vent about your complaints. I reply because I don't want ENWorld turning into the WotC forums. And because I remember the amount of time I wasted after 4e came out complaining about the game rather than moving on and making myself happy.

 

[Lokiare]

Constructive criticism:
Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one. In collaborative work, this kind of criticism is often a valuable tool in raising and maintaining performance standards. Because of the overuse of negative, nagging criticism, some people become defensive even when receiving constructive criticism given in a spirit of good will. Constructive criticism is more likely to be accepted if the criticism is focused on the recipient's work or behavior. That is, personality issues must be avoided as much as is possible. Critical thinking can help identify relevant issues to focus on. Constructive criticism is also more likely to be embraced if the criticism is timely, clear, specific, detailed and actionable.

We can look back via your account at every single thing you've posted on ENWorld. And the vast majority are regarding 5e and most are overly negative.

I posted a lengthy response about how a tactical rule module could work without changing the rules. You didn't reply because that's not why you're here. You're here to vent about your complaints. I reply because I don't want ENWorld turning into the WotC forums. And because I remember the amount of time I wasted after 4e came out complaining about the game rather than moving on and making myself happy.

My criticism is valid and well-reasoned. I use math to back it up as well as explaining in detail why I do or do not like something. I make positive comments to back up the positive aspects I see. I make negative comments to back up the negative aspects I see. I also do this in a friendly manner. I do not use crude language, insults, personal attacks or anything that can be construed as 'unfriendly'. Its simply that people assume my direct manner means I'm some kind of hate filled poster. Instead of doing that they should read the ideas I present and refute them directly. It works much better than attacking me personally and trying to construe everything I say in a super negative manner.

If you can link me the post you made that I didn't respond to, I'll respond to it. Its entirely likely that the shotgun approach used on modern forums left me without enough time to respond to every post. Its also likely that I responded but didn't quote your post directly to save time.